* WGs marked with an * asterisk has had at least one new draft made available during the last 5 days

6man Status Pages

IPv6 Maintenance (Active WG)
Int Area: Éric Vyncke, Suresh Krishnan | 2007-Sep-25 —  

IETF-105 6man minutes

Session 2019-07-23 1710-1810: Laurier - Audio stream - 6man chatroom
Session 2019-07-25 1550-1720: Duluth - Audio stream - 6man chatroom


minutes-105-6man-00 minute

          6MAN Working Group  - Montreal IETF Meeting
          Tuesday, 23 July 2019, Afternoon Session III, 17:10-18:10, Laurier
          Thursday, 25 July 2019, Afternoon Session II, 15:50-1720, Duluth
          Chairs: Bob Hinden, Ole Trøan
          Minute taker: Barbara Stark (both sessions)
          Jabber Scribe: Shuping Peng (both sessions)
          Jabber Room: 6man@jabber.ietf.org
          Meetecho: https://www.meetecho.com/ietf105/6man
          Agenda - 23 July 2019
          Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Document Status, Chairs, 5 min.
          Working Group Drafts
          Area Director Comments on "IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)",
          draft-ietf-6man-segment-routing-header , Suresh Krishnan / Darren Dukes,
          15 min.
          ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to processing limits,
          draft-ietf-6man-icmp-limits , Tom Herbert, 15 min.
          Active Individual Drafts
          Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option, draft-hinden-6man-mtu-option , Gorry
          Fairhurst / Bob Hinden, 15 min.
          New Individual Drafts (as time allows)
          IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks,
          draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless , Pascal Thubert, 5 min.
          IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Unicast Lookup, draft-thubert-6lo-unicast-lookup
          , Pascal Thubert, 5 min.
          Agenda - 25 July 2019
          Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Chairs, 5 min.
          Working Group Drafts
          RFC8200 Fragmentation Errata,  RFC8200 Errata  , Bob Hinden, 15 min.
          Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements, draft-ietf-6man-ra-pref64 ,
          Jen Linkova, 15 min.
          Active Individual Drafts
          Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic, draft-jones-6man-historic-rfc2675
          , Gorry Fairhurst, 10 min.
          SRV6+ Overview and Motivation, Ron Bonica, 15 min.
          IPv6 Support for Segment Routing: SRv6+,  draft-bonica-spring-srv6-plus
            The IPv6 Compressed Routing Header (CRH),
            The Per-Path Service Instruction (PPSI) Option,
            The Per-Segment Service Instruction (PSSI) Option
          New Individual Drafts (as time allows)
          Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing
          Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6), draft-ali-6man-spring-srv6-oam ,
          Zafar Ali, 5 min.
          Service-aware IPv6 Network, draft-li-6man-service-aware-ipv6-network ,
          Zhenbin Li, 5 min.
          Consideration of IPv6 Encapsulation for SFC and IFIT,
          draft-li-6man-ipv6-sfc-ifit , Shuping Peng, 5 min.
          Encapsulation of Path Segment in SRv6,
          draft-li-6man-srv6-path-segment-encap , Cheng Li, 5 min.
          Segment Routing Header encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data,
          draft-ali-spring-ioam-srv6 , Zafar Ali, 5 min.
          DetNet SRv6 Data Plane Encapsulation, draft-geng-detnet-dp-sol-srv6 ,
          Xuesong Geng, 5 min.
          Minutes (Tuesday, July 23)
          Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Document Status
          On document status slide...
          Jen Linkova: Not happy with outcome of IPv6 only flag draft.
          Suresh Krishnan: There has been a lot of feedback. Not everyone was happy
          with the outcome.
          IPv6 Segment Routing Header (SRH)
          Darren Dukes presented, walking through proposed changes to resolve IESG
          comments (no slides presented summary of IESG comments and proposed
          After Darren finished...
          Suresh: Send these to the list and I'll will start the IETF last call.
          ICMPv6 errors for discarding packets due to processing limits
          Presented by Tom Herbert
          Other ICMPv6 changes slide...
          Suresh: Question about advisability of problem code.
          Tom: I think you're saying this is outside the bounds of normal
          behavior. We aren't advocating but it's important to acknowledge.
          Suresh: That's fine, but just provide a little more info about it.
          Implementation slide...
          Suresh: One thing you can do is go ahead and lock down the errors.
          Tom: OK
          Ole: How many people are willing to review as part of WGLC? Six people
          said they would review.
          ACTION:  Chairs will start a working group last call.
          Path MTU Hop-by-Hop Option
          Presented by Bob Hinden and Gorry Fairhurst
          Tim Shepard: The box looking at these headers might not know about the
          bottleneck. Just so long as you're aware.
          Gorry: If you do things in certain ways, it will work.
          Bob: We don't expect this to be magic. We hope it will be useful in some
          cases. We need feedback.
          Tom Herbert: I like the idea of doing these experiments over the
          Internet. Can we make it ongoing to measure status of extension headers
          over the Internet?
          Gorry: Can we make this about useful headers?
          Jen Linkova: I like this, but we'll see how useful it is.
          Joel Jaeggli: Maybe this will work on some architectures? I'm not sure
          someone can write a hop-by-hop test that will work everywhere.
          Geoff Huston: We're getting some high failure rates because of extension
          headers. Not sure why. We'll try to publish some statistics more
          Dave Thaler: My understanding of what you draft is saying: If you don't
          understand it, pass it on.
          Gorry: It only works if...
          Dave: Right. It's an upper bound. What are you going to use this for?
          Gorry: PL
          Dave: Packetization layer
          Erik Kline:
          Bob: We also said something like that.
          Ole: People in favor of making this a WG draft, please hum now?
          Violently opposed?   OK, it sounds like there
          is support in favor of adopting the draft.
          ACTION:  Chair will confirm adoption of draft on mailing list.
          IPv6 Neighbor Discovery on Wireless Networks
          Presented by Pascal Thubert
          Lorenzo Colitti: This draft isn't really trying to start new work. I
          think it's incomplete.
          IPv6 Neighbor Discovery Unicast Lookup
          Presented by Pascal Thubert
          Ole: We will reconvene on Thursday. Please discuss Pascal's questions
          (regarding generalizing draft and moving to 6man) on the list.
          Thursday, July 25, 2019
          Introduction, Agenda Bashing, Document Status
          Ole mentioned the new RFC formats. There was much rejoicing when he said
          he could write his surname without slashes.
          IPv6 RFC8200 Fragmentation Errata
          Presented by Bob Hinden
          Joel Halpern: This [on slide 12] seems like a sensible approach, but I'm
          uncomfortable with publishing that thing that appears as an errata.
          Bob: See next slide. [slide 13]
          Joel: Ah! OK.
          Suresh Krishnan: [As AD] I like the option of approving errata and
          providing text. It seems like less overhead.
          Ole: The problem is there seems to be no direct correlation between the 3
          pointing to a fix.
          Suresh: Other things can proceed in parallel. I don't want to wait for a
          year. Keep this verify and then people can go to the RFC page and see it
          as verified.
          Ole: OK. So we'll take further discussion to list.
          Bob: Not recommended to do 8200bis.
          Suresh: Thank you.
          Bob: Next step is to send out text to list -- original, proposed, and
          diff.  Once there is agreement, Suresh can process the errata.
          Ole: It would be great if 2 different people could implement to verify
          ACTION:  Send proposed text to the list.
          Discovering PREF64 in Router Advertisements
          Presented by Jen Linkova
          Ole: Who is willing to review as part of WGLC?   Five people
          volunteered.  OK, we will start WGLC.
          ACTION:  Chairs will start working group last call on mailing list.
          Change Status of RFC 2675 to Historic
          Presented by Gorry Fairhurst
          Slide 5 (Questions for 6man)
          Brian Carpenter: I don't buy the argument. If you don't support it you
          don't have to do anything. I don't see why it's damaging to leave it
          alone. But there are people who want to do high packet transfer.
          Bob Hinden: [not as chair] Is a problem that there are no links you can
          really test this with?
          Gorry: I wouldn't want to bet that it worked. The code is not exercised.
          Bob: Code that is not used doesn't get better.
          Ron Bonica: I recommend moving to historic. There is no need to send a
          packet that long. Deprecating something we don't use is a good thing.
          Ole: [not as chair] I would second Brian's point. When we tried to
          implement in Cisco it was pointed out we had no buffers that could
          Gorry: We do have options to recommend only using in controlled
          Ole: You could imagine someone wanting to do certain things with it.
          Lorenzo Colitti: The question is, can we un-historicize it if we ever
          find it is useful? I don't see using it happening in the next 20 years,
          but maybe after that? How much effort is it to make it historic?
          Brian: Quoting from text that indicates when jumbo frame option can be
          used and that it need not be implemented or understood. I don't
          understand why anyone would bother to implement it. I don't understand
          why we need to do anything, because no one will implement.
          Erik Kline: Even though there might not be implementation support, there
          might be loopback.
          Gorry: Maybe
          David Lamparter: I would rather have it moved to historic.
          Suresh: [no hat] I've seen things that could potentially use this. I'd
          say let it be. If there's an implementation, then maybe they can fix it.
          Suresh: [AD hat] Moving to historic is not a problem. I know the
          process. So if the WG wants it done, I'll get it done.
          Gorry: There is a problem with people being told they have to support it.
          Brian: I would support a short document that would update the RFC that
          says "This is what I mean, and don't do it."
          Bob: Brian, are you willing to co-author?
          Brian: I'll see about that.   [Chairs took that as a yes that Brian will
          write a short document clarifying state of Jumbograms.
          IPv6 Support for Segment Routing: SRv6+
          Presented by Ron Bonica
          Bob: This was also presented to spring WG. There didn't seem like a lot
          of enthusiasm to take this on in Spring.
          Ron: There was discussion.
          Suresh: [as AD] What I said in spring -- what we did with SRH is what I'd
          like to do with this. Act like a gatekeeper.
          Martin Vigoureux: [Routing AD] You should expect a message from the
          spring chairs.
          Bob: Subscribe to the spring mailing list if you don't already.
          Operations, Administration, and Maintenance (OAM) in Segment Routing
          Networks with IPv6 Data plane (SRv6)
          Presented by Zafar Ali
          Greg Mirsky: Operators will appreciate this work. There is some
          inconsistency in how the draft is named and what it addresses. I think
          OAM is broader than just ping. Maybe target the name more. I think the
          draft is ready for adoption (and adoption call).
          Zafar: I agree with name change. Please suggest new name.  : Operators do
          like this. We have plans.
          Ron Bonica: Comment on where you're referencing it from. Not all devices
          have state forwarding control plane.
          Zafar: We can reword it.
          Cheng Li:
          Satoru Matsushima: As an operator who already deploys SRv6, I appreciate
          this work and hope the draft move forward. And support to keep the name
          Ole: We've discussed where right place is for this. We think it can be
          worked here. Please raise hand if you're willing to work on it
          here.  Excellent.
          Zafar: spring is happy for 6man to work on this.
          Bob: It seems mostly about defining data header.
          Ole: Objections?
          Suresh: No objection but please also take to list.
          Ole: Those in favor of adopting hum now.  Those opposed?
           Thank you. We will take this to the list as well.
          ACTION:  Chairs will confirm adoption on the mailing list.
          Application-aware IPv6 Networking
          Presented by Zhenbin Li
          Lorenzo Colitti: I can see where some people might be concerned.
          David Somers-Harris: I'm curious about the same thing.
          IPv6 Encapsulation for IOAM - Enhancement of IPv6 Extension Headers
          Presented by: Shuping Peng
          Greg Mirsky: I would suggest rather than putting data in packet to look
          at proposal in ippm WG that uses the packet to trigger measurements. This
          would allow you to tag multiple packets.
          Frank Brockners: We had a discussion on encapsulation of IAOM messages in
          6man last time and we have another discussion now. I thought conclusion
          was to progress in ippm first. This work needs to go to ippm first.
          Path Segment Encapsulation in SRv6
          Presented by Cheng Li
          Ron Bonica: Which node consumes the data? Why is it not a destination
          header option?
          Cheng: We can get data very quickly from IP header instead of destination
          header. Better processing performance.
          Ron: If that's the case, when is it appropriate to use DH?
          Cheng: Let's discuss off-line.
          Zhenbin Li:
          Segment Routing Header encapsulation for In-situ OAM Data
          Presented by Zafar Ali
          DetNet SRv6 Data Plane Encapsulation
          Presented by Xuesong Geng
          Ole: [not as chair] There is a non-WG-forming BoF trying to do something
          similar. I think there is a lot of overlap in what they are trying to
          Xuesong: I don't think it's a similar problem.
          Bob: Thank you and we will see you in Singapore.
          Meeting Adjourned

Generated from PyHt script /wg/6man/minutes.pyht Latest update: 24 Oct 2012 16:51 GMT -